Unpopular opinion:

Unpopular opinion:
The real album cover for this album should be banned hard since it’s literallt a form of animal abuse. Just because it isn’t explicitly “abusive” doesn’t mean it isn’t abuse. I 100% know some abusive degenerates have seen this cover as acceptable and have used it condone their abuse. It’s exploitive to animals and disgusting

Attached: Untitled.png (306x292, 189K)

This is the worst bait thread, and for Yea Forums, you know that's going some.

In a time, long, long ago, when our old, gray elders were our age -- we'll call it "The Pre-Internet Era" -- they took baby pictures of their kids, many of which were fully naked in the photos. As was done for generations before them. Never was this seen as "child pornography." It was seen as normal baby pictures. No one but the REALLY depraved would get off on it.

But now that we're in an age of hypersensitivity where the PC Police keep changing and evolving the rules every week, even things like nude baby pictures take on entirely different meanings and significance than their traditional intent.

To your concern that "some pervert degenerates have seen this cover as sexual and have used it for their, personal gains. It’s exploitive to children and disgusting," I would only say that there are degenerates who get off on maple trees if they're shaped the right way. Should the 95% of "normal" society change their customs and habits for the 5% wackos? That's the real question.

As for the kid in the Nevermind photo being exploited... I don't know the guy, but my guess is he grew up proud of being a part of rock history. Though he wasn't the first little boy so featured. Google the cover of the Woodstock Two album. That kid is actually older that the Nevermind kid. More of a Bible-thumping, SJW argument could be made for THAT album cover... ...I mean, if you're gonna go back 30 years, why not 50?

>This is shitty bait
>respondes with not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 paragraphs

i think he's cool ew.com/article/2016/09/25/nirvana-baby-recreates-nevermind-album-25-years/with it

>doctor gives birth to baby boy
>doctor, mother, family and nurses immediately arrested since nudity is pornography and they've just viewed child porn

>father dresses infant child
>SWAT kicks in the door and hauls him off on indecency with a minor charges

I don't know exactly what the band was trying to convey with the cover of Nevermind, but *MY* take is it is a jab at American culture that puts the worship and pursuit of the Almighty Dollar ahead of everything else. So, we have in the photo a dollar bill representing......"The Dollar" (or materialism in general). The nude baby sort of swimming after it represents how we are taught materialism from a very early age. Literally from our first birthday party or our first Christmas. The fact that the baby is nude is to convey the innocence of the child -- an innocence about to be lost to The Dollar.

But what do I know? I'm just some guy.

This but unironically

>two lines makes a paragraph
shouldn't've skipped English class, user

Attached: benny.jpg (537x527, 38K)

Dude, it's not sexual at all. Are you going to destroy every depiction of putti in art as well?

holy fuck you are a genius how did no one else figure this out before you did

Attached: ....jpg (90x125, 2K)

Yes, that’s degenerate art. Women are more beautiful when they’re clothed, liket they should be

Attached: A29DB5C5-ECAF-4027-935A-1EDD4E68D7AB.jpg (945x1920, 307K)

there is nothing inherently erotic about the picture so by definition it's not porn
Kurt may have a point, you might be a closet pedo

Attached: definition.png (737x379, 34K)

OP confirmed a baby diddler. brb informing authorites

bro im shook at this interpretation. its impossible to know what the band is trying to convey but this....this just makes so much sense. do you mind if i site your post in my english essay?

Why is posting the Nevermind cover allowed here but I got permabanned for posting the original cover of Blind Faith - Blind Faith?